| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions |
| Date: | 2024-05-15 18:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY-BqMybz2+FuZqbhpPyWCYFUAd=bAyZ1KFTDF=91NtFg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
This patch is currently parked in the July CommitFest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4735/
That's fine, except that I think that what the previous discussion
revealed is that we don't have consensus on how backtrace behavior
ought to be controlled: backtrace_on_internal_error was one proposal,
and this was a competing proposal, and neither one of them seemed to
be completely satisfactory. If we don't forge a consensus on what a
hypothetical patch ought to do, any particular actual patch is
probably doomed. So I would suggest that the effort ought to be
deciding what kind of design would be generally acceptable -- and that
need not wait for July, nor should it, if the goal is to get something
committed in July.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2024-05-15 18:36:23 | Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-05-15 18:24:00 | Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules |